Preparing for the Interviews:

For our teach-in, we wanted to explore how we could expand the conversation that we've been having in class to include those outside of Bryn Mawr and Haverford. Epeck, sekang, and I decided to do this by literally bringing other people into our classroom. With a list of questions on the topics that we felt generated the most discussion in class, we went to the 30th Street and Market East train stations to interview people. We chose these locations hoping that their large amounts of commuter traffic would enable us to speak with a population diverse in terms of race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status. Going into this project, we were aware that choosing random people for the interviews creates the problem of selection bias, and so we made a concentrated effort to approach as many people as possible. Of course, we acknowledge that selection bias, despite our efforts, probably still influenced who we spoke with.

We conducted eleven interviews, asking:

1. What is feminism?

2. Who do you think of when you think of feminism?

3. How do you know if someone is a man?

4. How do you know if someone is a woman?

5. How do you express your gender?

6. How do you define sex work?

7. Do you think that sex work can be empowering for women? 

Our group (myself, Debbie, and Maya)  didn't get much further during our first meeting than determining that a more open dialog regarding gender variance needs to occur early and often on campus.  During our second meeting, we discussed the potential intersection of our liberal idea regarding gender, and the college's marketing blitz in countries where rigid gender roles, and specific ideas about female chastity, would make it difficult to recruit students.  We also discussed the ways in which BMC has a specific narrative in place causes it to be a less open environment than we think it is.  I suggested, with Halberstam's help, that the word "rigorous" might be harming our ability to reconcieve gender on campus by presenting a very specific idea about who attends BMC, and what is expected of them.  We really couldn't come to any sort of peace regarding the topic though, as it is a few nuanced issue, and time was short.

Further notes from amophrast, Colleen, epeck, and melal

What happens to the historical mission of women's colleges in a queer time and place?

- liberal havens
- non-gendered vs. co-ed collegs
- if we were truly post-gender, we wouldn't have women's college?
- is the goal to be post-gender?
- is the goal of women's college to facilitate their own destruction/evolution
- doesn't mean that the rest of the world is changing at this rate, if at all
- more international goal? post-gender ideas seem Western
- provides a space for queer students
- nourishes growth/existence of feminist movement

Something for the college to do to recognize the fact that gender fluidity/gender queering/flexibility existssss?

A series of 4 groups to educate staff and faculty, including JMac
Workshops
including SGA, specific classes (E-Sem)
would it be mandatory? yes, to some extent
- Intro (separate between: students and staff/faculty)
- combined workshop
- combined workshop
- Outro/reflection (separate)

Alexandra Jane and Rebecca's video from the beginning of class of 4/24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebDCRFSJzzU

"Do it all."

A professor of mine just past me on the sidewalk. We stopped and chatted for a few minutes. This literally happened five minutes ago, so my thoughts may still be a bit jumbled, but if I wait to write this down I may loose this feeling, and I'd be doing the exact opposite of his advice- "Do it."

Somewhere along the line I was taught, or taught myself to believe, that the truely great people are the ones who invest themselves entirely in their passion. Mozart in his music. Martha Graham in her dance. I think I've conditioned myself to believe that if you truely want to be great, unique, groundbreaking, you have to choose a passion and develop into it. 

Five minutes ago, my professor said, "Do it all." DO IT ALL...

I thought having more than one passion meant you had to split yourself up, and therefore never fully commit yourself to one thing, one mode, and become truely great. I'm not sure I think that anymore. Maybe a person is more whole than that, and is able to take their "self" completely from one passion to the next, never spiltting, but fully investing with each new passion. 

I'm just thinking about our discomfort with statements and whatnot, and as an education minor, I think a lot about learning and pedagogy and whatever. So, there's this thing called the zone of proximal development, and Vgotsky, a psychologist wrote about it extensively. In my understanding, it's that we should push students to a place where their learning is challenged, but not to a point where students cannot be successful in the work they are confronted with. Perhaps we have been pushed in some ways too much, in some ways not enough. 

For me, I think that is a way in which my learning in this class has sometimes been lacking. And maybe it's just me, I don't know. Just some thoughts, that maybe I am at times not challenged enough, but also pushed in ways that make me shut down intellectually. I'm not sure.